Mitt Romney: Bully?

[YellowKing]

Alrighty then. I'm sorry that I came across as condescending, but the error in using the quotation marks did create confusion in my interpretation of the post we were discussing.

No problem, sorry I snapped. Long freaking day at work. R&P + work stress are not a good combo.

[silverjon]

Apology accepted.

[Chrisoc13]

I'm just curious what 'things' are in this context. Positions/Actions/War, etc. Have there been times when he has thought he was going to vote for an R before but switched to D? If so, why?

I've done so in the past - I thought I was going to vote D in the CA Gov election a few years back, but the eventual D was such an idiot and Schwarzenegger was actually decent enough on the environment that I voted for him. Unfortunately Schwarzenegger was undone by the R's in the CA legislature and things only got worse, instead of maybe a bit better.

But for now, I've seen nothing similar in any Republican Candidate. I'm wondering if there's a tipping point for Chrisoc.

IMHO, Romney is 'generic Republican' - which to me means no serious health care reforms (save repealing Health Care reform), more tax cuts (in addition to the Bush tax cuts), more military spending (with a higher chance of another war in the Middle East), more climate change denial (and more of the associated war on science), and more ultra-conservative Supreme Ct. Justices.

Honestly green goo was spot on. Not sure what would change it. Guess we will see if anything does.

I can't particularly think of any time in the past I have switched at the last minute. One time I decided not to vote in a local election because I decided I didn't like any of the candidates. Probably not the right thing to do but eh I lost all interest in that one. I have voted for plenty of Democrats in the past (well as many as you can in the ten years I've been voting) but in thinking through them I believe I was pretty set on them for a while.

I'm not sure what my tipping point would be. I wish I knew myself well enough to say what it would be but I'm not sure I do. I'll think about it and get back to you if I can because that is an interesting question.

[Pyperkub]

Thanks. I think it's interesting too, but especially with Romney as seems to be the epitome of everything to everyone in so many ways. Pro-choice and pro-life, pro-healthcare reform anti-health care reform, etc.

[Enough]

Alrighty then. I'm sorry that I came across as condescending, but the error in using the quotation marks did create confusion in my interpretation of the post we were discussing.

No problem, sorry I snapped. Long freaking day at work. R&P + work stress are not a good combo.

Been there, done that.

[Defiant]

A clip of one of Romney's defenders who wasn't at the actual incident. He hypothesizes that the joke may have "traumatize[d] the guy a little" but "no harm no foul"

What an ass.

Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”

I guess they're having a problem finding former classmates to defend him.

One of Mitt Romney’s closest friends and a high school classmate has been asked by the Romney campaign to come out and offer “supporting remarks” in defense of the candidate following a Washington Post article that described pranks at the Cranbrook School in the 1960s that focused on a student who was “presumed” to be gay. Romney has denied that the pranks were targeted.

Romney’s older brother Scott called White, asking him to act as a surrogate for Romney on their high school years.

White, in an interview with ABC News, said that he is “still debating” whether he will help the campaign, remarking, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.” While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

According to White, he knows of several other classmates that have also been approached by the campaign to counter the article. White declined to name the fellow classmates.

One former classmate and old friend of Romney’s – who refused to be identified by name – said there are “a lot of guys” who went to Cranbrook who have “really negative memories” of Romney’s behavior in the dorms, behavior this classmate describes as “like Lord of the Flies.”

The classmate believes Romney is lying when he claims to not remember it.

“It makes these fellows [who have owned up to it] very remorseful. For [Romney] not to remember it? It doesn’t ring true. How could the fellow with the scissors forget it?” the former classmate said.

link

[GreenGoo]

I care, because the article stated it, and even though he wasn't out and even if the bullies didn't realize he was attracted to men - and the quote makes clear that they did - it very likely did play a role in why he was picked on. There's a reason why nearly all gay kids experience bullying - even though many are in the closet. They're also more likely to experience more brutal bullying.

As I said before, it's wrong regardless of why someone is bullied. But that he was gay wasn't irrelevant.

I don't understand why the reason he was bullied is important in this context, but have at it I guess. Perhaps he liked to paint miniatures. Perhaps he was anti-social. Perhaps he had long hair and dress differently. Perhaps he was effeminate. Perhaps he was gay.

Why is the last one important? Do you feel the bullying is more of an issue personally if you fit into some of those categories but not others? Is it less ok for him to have bullied a gay guy than a guy who played lots of D&D? The corollary of course would be that it's more ok to bully people as long as the reason isn't because they're gay?

It's an interesting factoid but doesn't really change my opinion of Romney, whether he was being a douche to this guy because the guy was gay, or because the guy liked to read poetry.

[GreenGoo]

Alrighty then. I'm sorry that I came across as condescending, but the error in using the quotation marks did create confusion in my interpretation of the post we were discussing.

No problem, sorry I snapped. Long freaking day at work. R&P + work stress are not a good combo.

Been there, done that.

+1.

[Defiant]

I don't understand why the reason he was bullied is important in this context, but have at it I guess. Perhaps he liked to paint miniatures. Perhaps he was anti-social. Perhaps he had long hair and dress differently. Perhaps he was effeminate. Perhaps he was gay.

There's little "maybe" about it, when one of the bully admits that his being "presumed" gay played a part. I don't see why you want to ignore this fact. I don't ignore that he was anti-social and that his hair was different. I don't see why you need to ignore that his being gay played a role.

It's clear that Romney played "pranks" on other kids - no doubt those who were different or perceived weak. And yet I wouldn't be surprised that the reason he appears to have been more vicious in this case was in part because the student was gay.

Your thinking this strikes me as the kind of thinking that results in bullying laws that do not explicitly list protecting LGBT students that end up not being enforced in those cases because there is no mandate (not to mention those bullying laws that explicitly exclude those protections).

LGBT students are more than 2 times more likely to be bullied in a year than a straight student and nearly all LGBT students are bullied at some point. They are bullied more frequently and more viciously and are four times likely to commit suicide as a result. That he was gay was relevant.

The corollary of course would be that it's more ok to bully people as long as the reason isn't because they're gay?

As I've stated repeatedly in this very thread including the part of my post which you quoted as well as in other threads, there is no justification for bullying.

I would be just as upset with Romney - or anyone who bullied like this - regardless of whether the victim was gay or straight.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not ignoring anything.

I just don't care what justification Romney used to do his bullying. Why do you? Do you think we need Hate Bullying laws? Do you think this bullying is worse than if the victim had not been gay?

Homosexuals don't need more protection than everyone else. They deserve the same protection as everyone else.

[Defiant]

I'm not ignoring anything.

Yes, you are. You say that perhaps he was bullied because he was gay.

One of the bullies admitted that he was targeted because he was gay.

I just don't care what justification Romney used to do his bullying. Why do you?

Romney didn't offer a justification. He tried to reduce the fallout from this by saying that he didn't target the kid because he was gay, while at the same time claiming not to have remembered the incident at all - something which, on it's face, seems somewhat contradictory.

Do you think we need Hate Bullying laws?

I believe that bullying laws should explicitly list protecting LGBT students in it's mandates if that's what you mean.

Do you think this bullying is worse than if the victim had not been gay?

No. If the same exact incident happened, but the student was straight, it would be just as bad.

But from the same token, I think if the student were straight, he would have been less likely to have had this incident happen to him.

Homosexuals don't need more protection than everyone else. They deserve the same protection as everyone else.

[/quote]

When Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered Kids are overwhelmingly bullied more frequently and more viciously to the extent that they are four times more likely to commit suicide, I think they deserve more protection than Generic Kid. The point of anti-bullying is to protect those that are vulnerable.

Do you think police officers should be distributed equally throughout a city, or should there be more police officers in neighborhoods that are more prone to crime?

[silverjon]

While I was digging around yesterday, I found a blog post by someone else who knew Lauber at school, but hasn't been interviewed.

http://wandervogeldiary.wordpress.com/2 ... -the-past/

“John Lauber!?” I exclaimed. “I knew that kid!”

The news report said that Romney claims he doesn’t remember the incident. It said he claims he didn’t know that Lauber was gay.

“That was the furthest thing from our minds in those days,” Romney said.

I personally think Mitt Romney is lying through his teeth when he claims he didn’t know that John Lauber was gay. I knew John Lauber in those days, and there was no way you couldn’t know.

People do get picked on for being nerds, or scrawny, or introverted, or whatever. But you know what a lot of them get called, regardless of orientation? The boys mostly get fag. The girls hear dyke, lesbo, or lezzie. Because in middle school and high school, that is the worst name you can call somebody, the worst thing you can suggest about them as a person. And homophobic bullying like that targets not only the one being called the name, but anyone else in that environment, taking home the message that your peers all agree that being gay is a horrible thing.

[GreenGoo]

First, what has any of this to do with Romney being the next president of the US? This is the entire purpose of this thread. The victim is almost completely irrelevant to the conversation in this thread. Feel free to start a "homosexuals are more bullied than D&D kids" thread if you want.

Next, Red cars get more speeding tickets than other cars. Do we need more laws to govern red cars? We need to be very careful when we start treating crimes against one set of victims differently than the exact same crime against another set of victims. I get that that is what you want. I don't see what that has to do with the first point.

Third, hate crimes are already on the books.

Fourth, Romney is already a conservative. While I understand that some homosexuals vote conservative. They are a tiny minority even within the homosexual minority group. Given that, why do you care what Romney's motivations are? Were you planning on voting for him? Do you just want to know what level of dislike you should have for him?

This is like having someone up on sexual assault of a minor charges, but you want to know what the gender of the victim was, because you feel specific empathy with one gender. I get that YOU care. But it is not relevant to finding him guilty or not, and it is not relevant to the punishment he will receive if he is found guilty.

Because bullying is targeted at homosexuals more than other people, bullying against them is more heinous than hetero-kids? I don't feel that way and neither do the kids who get bullied. You may feel your bullying is "special" because it's targeted at identifiable group, but tell that to the hetero-kid. Tell him you feel bad about it but the gay kid is getting the same treatment but is more worthy of protection.

Lastly, we're not not talking bullying laws, school programs, rights for homosexuals, or having cops in gay neighbourhoods to prevent bullying. We're talking about Romney and whether he bullied someone 50 years ago. As much as it pains me to admit it, that's what's news worthy. If we were talking about a rape, would you care if the victim was 1 year over or 1 year under the age of consent? Why?

I'll happily support you in a discussion about how prosecuted gays are in all aspects of their lives. I know it to be true. I just don't see the relevance in this thread.

[GreenGoo]

I believe that bullying laws should explicitly list protecting LGBT students in it's mandates if that's what you mean.

Why? You mentioned selective enforcement. Is that a problem with the law? Will changing the law ensure it gets enforced? I'm not following.

I think we've already gone down the hate crime path, and I think it needs to be used sparingly. I think a HUGE amount of thought needs to be had before we start separating victims into different groupings despite being victims of the same crime.

[GreenGoo]

While I was digging around yesterday, I found a blog post by someone else who knew Lauber at school, but hasn't been interviewed.

http://wandervogeldiary.wordpress.com/2 ... -the-past/

“John Lauber!?” I exclaimed. “I knew that kid!”

The news report said that Romney claims he doesn’t remember the incident. It said he claims he didn’t know that Lauber was gay.

“That was the furthest thing from our minds in those days,” Romney said.

I personally think Mitt Romney is lying through his teeth when he claims he didn’t know that John Lauber was gay. I knew John Lauber in those days, and there was no way you couldn’t know.

People do get picked on for being nerds, or scrawny, or introverted, or whatever. But you know what a lot of them get called, regardless of orientation? The boys mostly get fag. The girls hear dyke, lesbo, or lezzie. Because in middle school and high school, that is the worst name you can call somebody, the worst thing you can suggest about them as a person. And homophobic bullying like that targets not only the one being called the name, but anyone else in that environment, taking home the message that your peers all agree that being gay is a horrible thing.

I would argue that a lot, although of course not all, usage of the word fag or gay as a pejorative in grade school is not actually a reference to homosexuality. You're right, everyone gets called gay or fag. Because gay or fag is a word of hatred when uttered by a bully/group of bullies. I still say "retarded" when I mean asinine or stupid. I don't actually mean the person/words has/have downs syndrome, I'm mean that I'm derisive of the person or statement.

I have been on BOTH sides of this equate, although only as a hetero, and I can tell you when I was in a group torturing a kid and calling them a fag, I in no way was calling them a homosexual in the literal meaning of the word. I was spewing hate and torment, yes. I wasn't saying, in effect, you're as low down as a homosexual. I was saying "you're a jerk and I hate you and I'm going to humiliate and crush your feelings".

Of course this does not mean that every time gay or fag is used it doesn't mean homosexual. When a bully calls you a fag and asks whether you sucked enough dick on the weekend then yeah, exactly what you said is true silverjon. It's just not always true. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Fag is not always used because their is nothing lower than being called a homosexual. Fag is sometimes used because it means I hate you.

While high school students are more aware of their sexuality and therefore more likely to understand the ramifications of what they are saying, it still doesn't always mean "I despise homosexuals and I'm calling you one". It can still mean "fuck you".

I expect dissent on this, but my own personal experiences on both sides of this fence are my own and I know what I know, whatever your opinion may be. Your experiences can and probably do differ.

[silverjon]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

Your thinking this strikes me as the kind of thinking that results in bullying laws that do not explicitly list protecting LGBT students that end up not being enforced in those cases because there is no mandate (not to mention those bullying laws that explicitly exclude those protections).

[silverjon]

I would argue that a lot, although of course not all, usage of the word fag or gay as a pejorative in grade school is not actually a reference to homosexuality.

(And a bunch of other stuff.)

The problem with all that is, these words used as perjoratives are also what some people fundamentally are. And day in and day out, they hear this description that they know to be true of themselves used to spew hatred and venom, or even just general disdain and dismissal (that's soooooooo gay).

And it affects them to their core. And some of them kill themselves, because what they are is equivalent to hatred, according to everything they hear around them. Gay means "fuck you". Fag is the worst thing you can say to someone, whether or not you actually think they're gay.

And what this means is that it is necessary to educate students on what those words used so lightly really mean, and enforce that homophobic slurs are as hurtful as racist ones.

I will say that I got called dyke and lezzie a lot, for all kinds of reasons: rebuffing boys, not kowtowing to the popular girls, dressing in grunge style instead of whatever was popular (it involved horrible big hair, but I don't really remember the clothes), hanging out too much with the wrong female friends, and who even knows what other offenses. What's weird is that I wasn't even all that unpopular. Most people liked me, but that doesn't mean I didn't get bullied.

Sometimes it was questioning my sexual orientation, and sometimes just as general meanness. I also got subjected to my share of (attempted) slut-shaming, which gets done to girls for both real and perceived sexual behavior, so it's not like all my peers were convinced I was actually gay. I still wanted to know why that particular set of words had been selected as being the way to attack, because I didn't believe being a lesbian was a bad thing. Sometimes, if it was safe to verbally engage, I'd ask about that. Nobody could ever answer me. It's just how things were and are.

The only way to change that is to fight it.

[Defiant]

First, what has any of this to do with Romney being the next president of the US? This is the entire purpose of this thread. The victim is almost completely irrelevant to the conversation in this thread. Feel free to start a "homosexuals are more bullied than D&D kids" thread if you want.

Since I initiated this thread - and the topic of bullying and gay kids is relevant in a story about, among other things, a gay kid who got bullied by Romney - I think I can be a judge of how relevant it is to this thread.

Next, Red cars get more speeding tickets than other cars. Do we need more laws to govern red cars?

If Red cars were four times as likely to get into deadly traffic accidents than other colored cars, I'd at the very least want a study to figure out why the hell that's the case - that's not just a statistical oddity, it's not even merely statistically significant. That's a statistical red sign saying something is very, very wrong.

We need to be very careful when we start treating crimes against one set of victims differently than the exact same crime against another set of victims. I get that that is what you want. I don't see what that has to do with the first point.

*facepalm*

No.

Third, hate crimes are already on the books.

I'm not even sure why you're bringing this up. (And hate crimes in relations to sexual preference is only "on the books" in some states, and gender identity in even fewer).

Fourth, Romney is already a conservative. While I understand that some homosexuals vote conservative. They are a tiny minority even within the homosexual minority group. Given that, why do you care what Romney's motivations are? Were you planning on voting for him? Do you just want to know what level of dislike you should have for him?

I'm not sure why that's relevant - are we only permitted to post if the issue is a factor to our 2012 decision? but if so:

I was undecided.

For a number of reasons, of which this is a major one, I now think it next to impossible for me to vote for Romney.

But I am still undecided.

This is like having someone up on sexual assault of a minor charges, but you want to know what the gender of the victim was, because you feel specific empathy with one gender. I get that YOU care.

No it's really fucking not. It's more like you're going around after a story about a rape and saying "Maybe the rape victim was a female, but we don't really know that. They could just as likely have been a male, and speaking of which, male-victim rape is a serious issue and should receive just as much attention and resources in prevention as female-victim rape" when the article states they were female.

Because bullying is targeted at homosexuals more than other people, bullying against them is more heinous than hetero-kids?

No, the same exact act of physical bullying is not more heinous because the victim is gay as opposed to straight. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED and which you ignore.

But a gay victim is much more likely to be the victim of bullying and much more likely to be a victim of a more heinous level of bullying.

Again, going back to the example I laid out, if you were the head of the police force, would you distribute your policemen equally around a city, or would you position more of them in locations more prone to crime?

[Defiant]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

This.

[Defiant]

The problem with all that is, these words used as perjoratives are also what some people fundamentally are. And day in and day out, they hear this description that they know to be true of themselves used to spew hatred and venom, or even just general disdain and dismissal (that's soooooooo gay).

And it affects them to their core. And some of them kill themselves, because what they are is equivalent to hatred, according to everything they hear around them. Gay means "fuck you". Fag is the worst thing you can say to someone, whether or not you actually think they're gay.

And what this means is that it is necessary to educate students on what those words used so lightly really mean, and enforce that homophobic slurs are as hurtful as racist ones.

I will say that I got called dyke and lezzie a lot, for all kinds of reasons: rebuffing boys, not kowtowing to the popular girls, dressing in grunge style instead of whatever was popular (it involved horrible big hair, but I don't really remember the clothes), hanging out too much with the wrong female friends, and who even knows what other offenses. What's weird is that I wasn't even all that unpopular. Most people liked me, but that doesn't mean I didn't get bullied.

Sometimes it was questioning my sexual orientation, and sometimes just as general meanness. I also got subjected to my share of (attempted) slut-shaming, which gets done to girls for both real and perceived sexual behavior, so it's not like all my peers were convinced I was actually gay. I still wanted to know why that particular set of words had been selected as being the way to attack, because I didn't believe being a lesbian was a bad thing. Sometimes, if it was safe to verbally engage, I'd ask about that. Nobody could ever answer me. It's just how things were and are.

The only way to change that is to fight it.

And this.

Actually, from now on, just mentally add a "This" after every one of silverjon's posts.

[silverjon]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

This.

And I'd expand it to include bullying that uses homophobic terms, regardless of the victim's orientation, since I've been talking about that.

[Defiant]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

This.

And I'd expand it to include bullying that uses homophobic terms, regardless of the victim's orientation, since I've been talking about that.

This.

[GreenGoo]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

This.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's like having armed robbery laws but if the owner of the shop is korean then the cops won't do anything about it.

First, let me apologize. You're allowed, of course, to care about whatever you want, even if it's tangential to the subject at hand. I don't have to understand it or agree with it for it to be valid for you.

This is in the public eye not because it's a case of gay bashing, but because it's a case of a candidate for the presidency of the US of A who may or may not have bullied someone. It's possible it was gay bashing. He denies it. Others say it's true.

If you want to make it about gay bashing, go for it. The only reason anyone is talking about a 50 year old case of possible gay bashing is because it's Romney. It's weird (imo) to focus on the sexuality orientation of the victim but again, have at it.

As for the need to identify the sexual orientation of the victim in anti-bullying laws, I really don't understand, and I probably never will. Either the bullying laws cover bullying or they don't. Either they get enforced or they don't. As for bullying laws that specifically exclude bullying homosexuals, well that's fucked up and had never heard of such a thing and can't imagine the mindset that had people trying to protect victims while making sure some of those victims can be victimized with impunity.

A lack of enforcement does mean laws need to be changed or we need more laws. If people are not enforcing bullying laws when the victim is gay, then adding them specifically to the law is not going to make those same people suddenly start protecting homosexual victims of bullying.

Ok, that was a weak apology. I'm still annoyed because I don't get it and feel like you are missing the point of the discussion, but perhaps I'm the one missing it. I do mean to apologize for telling you your priorities are in the wrong place. That's not my business and I was wrong to tell you so.

[GreenGoo]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

This.

And I'd expand it to include bullying that uses homophobic terms, regardless of the victim's orientation, since I've been talking about that.

This.

What? You're suggesting that we need to identify specific terms that are automatically bullying? That seems....insane. Especially coming from you, who is more aware than most of the nature of the spoken language. How do you plan on differentiating between using the term as abuse and using the term as a form of affection, mah nigga?

[Combustible Lemur]

Sexual orientation may not be explicitly mentioned in a given anti-bullying policy, and if it's not, then students bullied for being LGBTQ may still not be protected, even though other anti-bullying is enforced.

This.

As for the need to identify the sexual orientation of the victim in anti-bullying laws, I really don't understand, and I probably never will. Either the bullying laws cover bullying or they don't. Either they get enforced or they don't. As for bullying laws that specifically exclude bullying homosexuals, well that's fucked up and had never heard of such a thing and can't imagine the mindset that had people trying to protect victims while making sure some of those victims can be victimized with impunity.

A lack of enforcement does mean laws need to be changed or we need more laws. If people are not enforcing bullying laws when the victim is gay, then adding them specifically to the law is not going to make those same people suddenly start protecting homosexual victims of bullying.
.

Speaking to selective enforcement, that is exactly the issue.

It's the age old she was asking for it disdain. If it's on the books, it is easier to put pressure on proper enforcement.

That's like having armed robbery laws but if the owner of the shop is korean then the cops won't do anything about it.

That happens all the time. See: army rape.

[GreenGoo]

That happens all the time. See: army rape.

I get it. I just don't see how adding Korean victim to the law would have any impact.

It's not that I don't understand that corruption exists, it's that I don't see how changing the wording of the law makes it go away.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

And of course, Ralph-Wiggum did the exact same thing in the other direction. Consistency people!

I don't remember ever calling Trevon Martin a boy or kid (or, in fact, ever posting about him at all).

My point here was that, for the vast majority of people, your personality at 18 is generally your personality later in life. To dismiss the story because Romney was only 18 and is now a completely different person seems ridiculous to me.

[Defiant]

Apology accepted - although there's no need. We all get worked up from time to time and we may have both talked past each other, but there was no malice in your post.

As for the need to identify the sexual orientation of the victim in anti-bullying laws, I really don't understand, and I probably never will. Either the bullying laws cover bullying or they don't. Either they get enforced or they don't.

When it's explicitly stated, it's more effective, for example, in teaching the ignorant teacher who might not identify such bullying, preventing the homophobic teacher who ignores such bullying and may be protected by the vagueness of a less specific law, or in covering the teacher who wants to help but feels that they need to be able to point to.

Some statistics showing the added effectiveness:

*Research has shown that students in states with non-enumerated bullying laws are no more protected from bullying than students who live in states without any anti-bullying and harassment laws (74.3% with generic policies vs. 75.0% withno policies report ‘often or frequently’ hearing homophobic remarks based on sexual orientation).

*Students report less overall harassment when they know their school has a comprehensive policy that includes enumeration. Students from schools with an enumerated policy report that others are harassed far less often in their school for reasons like their physical appearance (36% vs. 52%), their
sexual orientation (32% vs. 43%) or their gender expression (26% vs. 37%).

*Students whose schools have a policy that specifically includes sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are less likely than other students to report a serious harassment problem at their school (33% vs. 44%).

*Enumeration gives teachers and other educators the tools they need to implement anti-bullying and harassment policies, which makes it easier for them to intervene to prevent bullying. School personnel often fear that they will themselves be targeted for intervening on behalf of LGBT students. When they can point to language that provides clear protection for LGBT students, they feel more comfortable enforcing the policy. Students reported that teachers were significantly more likely to intervene always or most of the time in states with enumerated policies, as compared to states with either non-enumerated policies or no policies at all (25.3% vs. 15.9% and 12.3%).

*Evidence shows that school officials often do not recognize that anti-LGBT harassment and discrimination are unacceptable behaviors, or do not respond to the problem due to prejudice or community pressure without the cover of a specific law or policy.

*Students from schools with a enumerated policy are 50% more likely to feel very safe at school (54% vs. 36%). Students without such a policy are three times more likely to skip a class because they feel uncomfortable or unsafe (16% vs. 5%).

link

[YellowKing]

My point here was that, for the vast majority of people, your personality at 18 is generally your personality later in life. To dismiss the story because Romney was only 18 and is now a completely different person seems ridiculous to me.

Personality != action.

I did a lot of stupid stuff at 18 that I wouldn't do at 37. With age comes wisdom, and with wisdom comes the ability to know your limits.

And let's say, even for the sake of argument, that Romney was a bully at 18 and he's still a bully at 65. What the hell's he going to do? Light an M80 and throw it in the VP's mailbox? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Romney was a homophobe at 18 and he's still a homophobe at 65. It's not like he was going to take office and suddenly reverse the Republican platform on gay marriage.

Weakest dirt ever on a Presidential candidate. The dude's a total square.

[Captain Caveman]

Weakest dirt ever on a Presidential candidate. The dude's a total square.

I hear that one time in a moment of weakness, Seamus wasn't the only one who got to ride on top, if you know what I'm saying (and I think you do).

[Defiant]

I admit my reaction is partly - perhaps even mostly - emotional, but...

Personality != action.

Personality affects actions and personality definitely plays a role in being president and being a leader.

I don't expect Romney today to round up a posse and give a haircut to Adam Lambert.

But, among other things, I certainly think his act speaks volumes about his lack of empathy, and I think his conditional apology where he laughed and claimed not to remember reinforces that. As does other stuff he's said and done during this election cycle.

[Chrisoc13]

I admit my reaction is partly - perhaps even mostly - emotional, but...

Personality != action.

Personality affects actions and personality definitely plays a role in being president and being a leader.

I don't expect Romney today to round up a posse and give a haircut to Adam Lambert.

But, among other things, I certainly think his act speaks volumes about his lack of empathy, and I think his conditional apology where he laughed and claimed not to remember reinforces that. As does other stuff he's said and done during this election cycle.

And what of frontal lobe development? Just curious because the research is there and despite my bringing it up it largely has been brushed aside in this thread. Teenagers really don't have a fully developed frontal lobe which explains why so many teenagers make poor choices. Such as the choices made in this situation.

[Defiant]

Bill Clinton or George W. Bush could disavow youthful errors with a lot more flair than this.

Speaking of George, here's how he responded in a similar incident:

George was not just a frat-house party boy. One of my most vivid memories is this: A few of us were in the common room one night. It was 1965, I believe -- my junior year, his sophomore. [And the same year as the reported Romney episode.] We were making our usual sarcastic commentaries on those who walked by us. A little nasty perhaps, but always with a touch of humor. On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.

George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... xt/257097/

[Defiant]

And what of frontal lobe development? Just curious because the research is there and despite my bringing it up it largely has been brushed aside in this thread. Teenagers really don't have a fully developed frontal lobe which explains why so many teenagers make poor choices. Such as the choices made in this situation.

That's not an adequate excuse when 90+% of teenagers get through their teenage years without physically assaulting anyone, let alone leading a group of others on a physical assault, and when he continues to show a lack of empathy.

[Chrisoc13]

And what of frontal lobe development? Just curious because the research is there and despite my bringing it up it largely has been brushed aside in this thread. Teenagers really don't have a fully developed frontal lobe which explains why so many teenagers make poor choices. Such as the choices made in this situation.

That's not an adequate excuse when 90+% of teenagers get through their teenage years without physically assaulting anyone, let alone leading a group of others on a physical assault, and when he continues to show a lack of empathy.

90+% of teenagers do however ostracize and damage other kids in many different ways. As has been covered by others extensively times are quite a bit different now than they were then. Half a century ago.

Also what examples of continued lack of empathy? I have seen no examples of such. I have seen plenty of empathy from him.

[Defiant]

90+% of teenagers do however ostracize and damage other kids in many different ways.

First off, do you have a cite for your number? I couldn't find numbers for how many kids have bullied other kids, although this suggests the number is 10-35%.

Second, are you really trying to excuse someone who didn't just participated in a more serious physical assault, but in actually leading others in the assault, because more kids are willing to perform less serious bullying?

Also what examples of continued lack of empathy? I have seen no examples of such. I have seen plenty of empathy from him.

His laughter and conditional apology to this incident.

The humor he finds in his father shutting down a plant in Detroit.

The laughter when trying to explain the dog-on-the-roof-of-the-car story.

His awkwardness in trying to reach out to certain groups ("Who let the dogs out?")

A who list of quotes that, while they may have been mis-phrased, speak to someone who says stuff without thinking about how his audience will react to it:

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."
"Corporations are people, my friend"
"I like being able to fire people"
"My wife drives a couple of Cadillacs"
His $10K bet.

Or more empathizing FAIL:

"I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners."
"I'm also unemployed."
“I know what it’s like to worry whether you’re gonna get fired. There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.’’

[Chrisoc13]

90+% of teenagers do however ostracize and damage other kids in many different ways.

First off, do you have a cite for your number? I couldn't find numbers for how many kids have bullied other kids, although this suggests the number is 10-35%.

Second, are you really trying to excuse someone who didn't just participated in a more serious physical assault, but in actually leading others in the assault, because more kids are willing to perform less serious bullying?

Also what examples of continued lack of empathy? I have seen no examples of such. I have seen plenty of empathy from him.

His laughter and conditional apology to this incident.

The humor he finds in his father shutting down a plant in Detroit.

The laughter when trying to explain the dog-on-the-roof-of-the-car story.

His awkwardness in trying to reach out to certain groups ("Who let the dogs out?")

A who list of quotes that, while they may have been mis-phrased, speak to someone who says stuff without thinking about how his audience will react to it:

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."
"Corporations are people, my friend"
"I like being able to fire people"
"My wife drives a couple of Cadillacs"
His $10K bet.

Or more empathizing FAIL:

"I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners."
"I'm also unemployed."
“I know what it’s like to worry whether you’re gonna get fired. There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.’’

Nope no numbers. To be honest the real research I produced for you was swept away and you threw out a random number, I just matched it. That's where that number came from. It wasn't a quote of a source, much like your 90%+ wasn't. Not to be snippy but you threw out a number with absolutely no research to back it up but then expected my number to have a source. Sorry I was playing your game.

I think you are stretching a bit here on the empathy. He certainly has trouble relating to the common person (us), in fact that is much more of a problem he is facing than any alleged incident 50 years ago. To equate this to showing a problem with empathy and to make you wonder about bullying, sorry you are seeing what you want to see. Not to mention taking things out of context and using the left talking points line for line.

Is he awkward? Yes. Is he a bit stiff? Obviously. Does this mean he has empathy problems and is a bully? Hardly. Nice stretch.

Want a counter point? Here is an article about him helping out a neighbor after the California fires of 2007 with pictures and all. But he probably had no empathy for the situation his neighbor was in. I found that in two seconds.

Nice stretch on "when he continues to show a lack of empathy." Awkward public speakers of the world be warned, your mis-phrased and taken out of context quotes are now signs of a lack of empathy and are heavily related to a willingness to bully people. Right.

[Defiant]

Nope no numbers. To be honest the real research I produced for you was swept away and you threw out a random number, I just matched it. That's where that number came from. It wasn't a quote of a source, much like your 90%+ wasn't. Not to be snippy but you threw out a number with absolutely no research to back it up but then expected my number to have a source. Sorry I was playing your game.

You're right, I made an assumption based on that 10-20% of kids are physically bullied, my own personal experiences and the seriousness of the incident. But the additional information seems to corroborate it. The point still stands that Romney not only physically assaulted a boy but led other boys in the assault, something the vast majority of kids do not do, and you excuse it by pointing to the kids who bullied by non-physical means.

[silverjon]

What? You're suggesting that we need to identify specific terms that are automatically bullying? That seems....insane. Especially coming from you, who is more aware than most of the nature of the spoken language. How do you plan on differentiating between using the term as abuse and using the term as a form of affection, mah nigga?

I'm not exactly sure what to say to this, because I think there's a big element of talking past each other involved.

I suspect a large part of that is that I'm viewing anti-bullying policies as more educational and less punitive. I'm not saying that homophobic bullying needs to be treated more harshly, but that special focus on it is required because of the way it's been ingrained into the social structure of the average schoolyard. It's not about singling out those who actively participate in this, but about shining a light on it, for students, teachers, and parents, so they'll be able to recognize it when they see it, and be more likely to counteract it. Gay means "fuck you" is not acceptable.

More info. From 2001, but not much has changed.
http://www.pflagdetroit.org/MSS_News4.htm

As for what it has to do specifically with Mitt Romney, topic drift happens, and this subject is more interesting.

[Grundbegriff]

Those who insist on weighing Romney in view of his apparent obnoxiousness back when he was at prep school must also take into account his apparent generosity and kindness in the decades since. If you're going to judge a man by his works, judge a man by all his works.

To use one or two regrettable incidents against him while disallowing his good deeds as salient factors in assessing him is inconsistent.

He does sound as if he was presumptuous and narcissistic in his early teens. But as W once quipped, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."